I am old enough to remember when Scientific American was a respected publication for those wanting to follow the world of scientific research. Seeing Scientific American reprint an article from “The Conversation” (which is never about actual conversation, it seems, but is more about politically correct virtue signalling) by two self-righteous, self-anointed “experts” is quite saddening (and maddening). That the article in question seeks once again to resurrect the long discredited and debunked notion that universal masking stops the spread of infectious respiratory disease—i.e., exploded “Science™” that was undone long ago by actual science—merely underscores how far the mighty have fallen.
Absent from this discussion is the fact that industrial hygienists (IH) are PPE experts and professionally recommend levels of protection for industrial applications, such as removal of mold and asbestos. During the peek of the pandemic I saw ONE video on social media from an industrial hygienists pleading with a local school board to reverse their mask mandate on children and adults alike, as they do more harm than good. IH use scientific FACT along with long established LAW to recommend appropriate PPE for public employee application of PPE, yet these experts have been eliminated from the discussion. If you want an idea of what PPE is necessary to prevent the spread of a virus, look at what scientists wear in a level 4 biolab. Full negative pressure suits. Bam. Also ignored is the fact that more people died of bacterial pneumonia than the Spanish Flu in 1918 - due to overuse of facemasks. The solution? Put patients outdoors, maskless, in the fresh air and sunshine. Virus defeated.
Thank you for that unapologetic review of the basis on which we make decisions. It is crucial that your argument be made often and much. Unapologetically!
If there is a subway rider prone to sneeze due to an infection, yes, a mask over his/her face would be useful. But all the other riders? They’re not doing aerosol-creating surgery, so masking is useless. Except as a badge of compliance with tyranny.
Unscientific American. In the good old days many a train ride from Niagara to Montreal turned into a wonderful journey of discovery, of fascination. Reading that journal was one of the joys of life.
Alas, the truth itself has been so deeply subverted in our society that even Sci Am and other health profession journals went woke. Rags of CRT. Making them obscenely irrelevant. Thankfully, trains have windows, out of which the traveller looks, observes, learns and ponders.
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.
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.
More Masking Madness: Appealing To One's Own Credentials Is Always A False Argument
I cancelled my subscription to Scientific American years ago. They're just another propaganda rag.
Absent from this discussion is the fact that industrial hygienists (IH) are PPE experts and professionally recommend levels of protection for industrial applications, such as removal of mold and asbestos. During the peek of the pandemic I saw ONE video on social media from an industrial hygienists pleading with a local school board to reverse their mask mandate on children and adults alike, as they do more harm than good. IH use scientific FACT along with long established LAW to recommend appropriate PPE for public employee application of PPE, yet these experts have been eliminated from the discussion. If you want an idea of what PPE is necessary to prevent the spread of a virus, look at what scientists wear in a level 4 biolab. Full negative pressure suits. Bam. Also ignored is the fact that more people died of bacterial pneumonia than the Spanish Flu in 1918 - due to overuse of facemasks. The solution? Put patients outdoors, maskless, in the fresh air and sunshine. Virus defeated.
This was my favorite part:
"Respiratory viruses have rebounded hard after COVID seclusion..."
Those idiots have.been hiding in their homes for almost 3 years.
Life is to be lived, not controlled; and humanity is won by continuing to play in face of certain defeat. ― Ralph Ellison
Thank you for that unapologetic review of the basis on which we make decisions. It is crucial that your argument be made often and much. Unapologetically!
If there is a subway rider prone to sneeze due to an infection, yes, a mask over his/her face would be useful. But all the other riders? They’re not doing aerosol-creating surgery, so masking is useless. Except as a badge of compliance with tyranny.
Unscientific American. In the good old days many a train ride from Niagara to Montreal turned into a wonderful journey of discovery, of fascination. Reading that journal was one of the joys of life.
Alas, the truth itself has been so deeply subverted in our society that even Sci Am and other health profession journals went woke. Rags of CRT. Making them obscenely irrelevant. Thankfully, trains have windows, out of which the traveller looks, observes, learns and ponders.
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.
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.