Correct, they don't work as a mitigation against Covid. But they were very effective as a psychological weapon, a constant reminder that we should be afraid of the horrible pandemic! Without the masks, I'm confident most people would have shrugged it off by the end or 2020, i.e. before the toxic shots came on the scene.
Two years ago, January of 2021 I noticed an amazing contrast. I had spent the previous several months up in SE PA where indoor masking was mandatory. People were miserable, grumpy, and afraid there. Then we headed down to NE FL, as we normally do right after the holidays. There were no mask mandates here, and although some people wore them voluntarily, most did not. The difference in people's attitude was night and day. Things were darn close to normal here!
Masks are such a hideous symbol of submission and slavery that even if they did give any kind of benefit at all, the psychological damage done to both the wearer and witnesses outweighs that argument tenfold. I cannot stand to even look at people who insist on wearing them.
Define "work." If you define it as having any effect on stopping the spread of a "virus," you'd have to say they fail miserably. If, on the other hand, you define "work" as maintaining fear and control over (at least part of) the population, you'd have to say they work splendidly.
Yeh, when I saw her and three others (including David FIsman) push back on the review in an article in The Conversation I was floored and appalled.
What is it with these people and the masks? I find it troubling how they just 'declare' things to be. 'Nah, RCTs suck. Better to design fancy models'. And this is what it comes down to. The triumph of mathematical models.
Fisman is a modelling charlatan. He published a 'study' that asserted the unvaccinated threatened the vaccinated. It wouldn't be so bad if an MP hadn't read it in Parliament. This stuff is not only junk science, but it's dangerous to the civil order because politicians are now thoroughly invested in the narrative of masks and the cult of pseudoscience.
So. Are we to believe that lab-controlled and observational studies are the 'gold standards' for masks?
I don't even believe N-95s are effective. These masks are mostly for dust particles in the construction industry. And they're to be worn but for a couple of hours max. If you work eight hours that's four masks. At $5 a pop that's $20 a day for 30 days. Or $600 per month. How stupidly unrealistic are scientists these days?
Moreover, medical masks are often made of materials that are known carcinogens.
Here's Heneghan interviewing Jefferson about the review:
Correct, they don't work as a mitigation against Covid. But they were very effective as a psychological weapon, a constant reminder that we should be afraid of the horrible pandemic! Without the masks, I'm confident most people would have shrugged it off by the end or 2020, i.e. before the toxic shots came on the scene.
Two years ago, January of 2021 I noticed an amazing contrast. I had spent the previous several months up in SE PA where indoor masking was mandatory. People were miserable, grumpy, and afraid there. Then we headed down to NE FL, as we normally do right after the holidays. There were no mask mandates here, and although some people wore them voluntarily, most did not. The difference in people's attitude was night and day. Things were darn close to normal here!
Masks are such a hideous symbol of submission and slavery that even if they did give any kind of benefit at all, the psychological damage done to both the wearer and witnesses outweighs that argument tenfold. I cannot stand to even look at people who insist on wearing them.
Define "work." If you define it as having any effect on stopping the spread of a "virus," you'd have to say they fail miserably. If, on the other hand, you define "work" as maintaining fear and control over (at least part of) the population, you'd have to say they work splendidly.
If it’s true one can be infected through the eye mucosa, that blows the mask thing out of the water, no?
Yeh, when I saw her and three others (including David FIsman) push back on the review in an article in The Conversation I was floored and appalled.
What is it with these people and the masks? I find it troubling how they just 'declare' things to be. 'Nah, RCTs suck. Better to design fancy models'. And this is what it comes down to. The triumph of mathematical models.
Fisman is a modelling charlatan. He published a 'study' that asserted the unvaccinated threatened the vaccinated. It wouldn't be so bad if an MP hadn't read it in Parliament. This stuff is not only junk science, but it's dangerous to the civil order because politicians are now thoroughly invested in the narrative of masks and the cult of pseudoscience.
So. Are we to believe that lab-controlled and observational studies are the 'gold standards' for masks?
I don't even believe N-95s are effective. These masks are mostly for dust particles in the construction industry. And they're to be worn but for a couple of hours max. If you work eight hours that's four masks. At $5 a pop that's $20 a day for 30 days. Or $600 per month. How stupidly unrealistic are scientists these days?
Moreover, medical masks are often made of materials that are known carcinogens.
Here's Heneghan interviewing Jefferson about the review:
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/02/06/dr-carl-heneghan-interviews-dr-tom-jefferson-about-his-major-new-study-showing-masks-have-no-clear-effect/