Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
Trolling the Atheist Trolls
-
Trolling the Atheist Trolls
-
At least Fred was wiser than to respond in the way that you did.
-
The atheist claim to have the evidence that God doesn’t exist, yet they even look through research to determine hysteria from data. No wonder y’all can’t find God. There were a few more links presented and I went through one of them just because, and of course there is again no data to support your claims. If you would quit providing links and actually follow the data–you would find the truth. BTW, a salon observation is nowhere near a scientific study and I think the CDC was even using that as a reference at one time.
If you would have been following the data, you would know that the initial CDC bulletin claimed the masks didn’t work. Then they had a change of heart–and pulled the bulletin and replaced it with one that stated they were effective. If you’re so convinced of your beliefs, follow the CDC trail–you know the experts that this “janitor” would never consider. The problem with you atheists is that there are some very smart janitors out there and unlike y’all, I would listen to what they had to say.
I’m not going through and citing a bunch of studies again, because I’ve been through at least 20 of them and they all support the fact that masks don’t work. Here’s some more science for you:
Please don’t get me going on the “safe and effective” jabs that were never tested and approved. I have too many friends that have died from the jab and I’ve seen too much evidence to know that they are anything but safe and effective.
-
You should have looked for the actual studies, instead of uncritically accepting the Daily Mail’s biased reporting
This article analyzed the VTOC claim. Extracts:
The Mail’s headline and statements in its report offer readers the impression that the study found dangerously high levels of VOCs from various face masks, suggesting that wearing N95 masks “could cause more harm than good” to people’s health. This is misleading however, and ignores key findings from the study indicating otherwise.
The researchers did report that the total VOC (TVOC) levels released from two of the three KF94 masks (samples B1 and B3) tested fell within the range of high-risk TVOC levels for indoor air set by the German Environment Agency. But they also noted that the TVOC level fell to safe ranges if the masks were removed out of their packaging and allowed to sit in the air for half an hour, an observation that the Mail acknowledged.
The study reported that the levels of these hazardous VOCs “were very low, nearly 100–1000 times less than the recommended exposure limit set by NIOSH”.
Therefore, the study’s finding on hazardous VOCs actually conflicts with the Mail’s headline that the masks could expose people to a “dangerous level of toxic compounds linked to seizures and cancer”.
In addition, the Mail article reported that the study had examined “toxic volatile organic compounds (TVOC)”. However, the abbreviation TVOC used in the study stands for “total volatile organic compounds”, not “toxic volatile organic compounds”. This error in the article introduces a significant change to the meaning of TVOC that is potentially misleading for readers when interpreting the study.
Here’s a link to the actual study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10112860/
Here’s the meta-study of mask efficacy: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9885521/
This is as extract from conclusion to the meta-study:
Our confidence in these results is generally low to moderate for the subjective outcomes related to respiratory illness, but moderate for the more precisely defined laboratory‐confirmed respiratory virus infection, related to masks and N95/P2 respirators. The results might change when further evidence becomes available. Relatively low numbers of people followed the guidance about wearing masks or about hand hygiene, which may have affected the results of the studies.
It’s also noteworthy that this study included only 2 RCTs that took place during the COVID pandemic.
Here is a broader study (it includes observational studies), completed after that one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10446908/
Still, it’s clear that results of masking implies they’re less effective in practice than expected by lab results. The question to be further explored is: why? There have been some analyses, but I’ll defer referencing these for now.
healthfeedback.org
Scientific evidence shows wearing a face mask reduces the spread of COVID-19. Wearing a face mask also doesn’t significantly impede the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide, as gas molecules are many times smaller than the pores of even an … Continue reading
-
From the Janitor’s desk:
healthimpactnews.com
Early on during the COVID Plandemic, when mask mandates began to be rolled out, which incidentally only began after California Governor Gavin Newsom's nearly 1 BILLION dollar purchase of Chinese-made masks began clearing customs and making its way into the … Continue reading
-
I again recommend that you seek out the studies that you see referenced in your favorite anti-vax/anti-mask sites.
Here’s a link to the 2001 study they referenced:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0310057X0102900402
The conclusion:
“The surgical mask was introduced to protect patients from being infected by large pathogen-containing aerosol droplets emitted by health personnel. The enormous advances made in the design of operating theatres have minimized the risk of air-borne contamination by micro-organisms. Laminar flow/steriflow systems provide the greatest reduction in environmental contamination, and in this environment other variables such as duration of procedure, operating theatre personnel and their attire, including masks, have insignificant impact from an infection control viewpoint”
While this is interesting, it has zero bearing on whether or not masking can be an effective means of transmitting viruses like COVID. (and notice I said, “can be”).
-
-
-
-
-
Here’s the actual study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.18.21257385v1.full.pdf
Conclusion:
Our main finding is that mask mandates and use are not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 spread among US states. 80% of US states mandated masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. …
There is inferential but not demonstrable evidence that masks reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Animal models [25], small case studies [6], and growth curves for mandate-only states [16] suggest that mask efficacy increases with mask use [11]. However, we did not observe lower growth rates over a range of compliance at maximum Fall-Winter growth (45-83% between South Dakota and Massachusetts during maxima) [17] when growth rates were high.
What’s notable is that the observed result (no difference in spread of COVID) is contrary to what was expected. Mask recommendations and mandates were made based on expectations; health officials aren’t clairvoyant.
We need researchers to try and determine why masking didn’t have the expected benefits, as well as to guide policymakers in the future. Don’t you agree?
-
We don’t need more research because others have done the laboratory testing (by janitors of course) to prove the theoretical science. Masks are filtration media that are not fine enough to stop a small virus particle.
Many doctors believe that masks will prevent the spread of bacterial infections because bacteria particles are much larger. Howwever, that one link provided research that it didn’t stop the spread of bacterial infections either.
-
-
-
<font size=”2″>https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/04/no_author/dr-ryan-cole-blows-the-whole-covid-19-propaganda-away/</font>
- <font size=”2″>Coronavirus infections are seasonal</font>
- <font size=”2″>Average COVID-19 age of death 78.6 years. Average annual US age of death historically 78.6 years.</font>
- <font size=”2″>Face mask wearing outdoors is absolute insanity. No study shows any super-spreader event outdoors. The best mask of all is your immune system.</font>
- <font size=”2″>There is no such thing as cold and flu season. There is only low vitamin D season.</font>
- <font size=”2″>Inflammatory (cytokine) storm cannot be controlled without adequate vitamin D levels.</font>
- <font size=”2″>Massive numbers of Americans have low vitamin D levels.</font>
- <font size=”2″>96% of ICU patients are vitamin D deficient</font>
- <font size=”2″>You cannot synthesize vitamin D from sunlight during fall and winter at 35-degrees north.</font>
- <font size=”2″>You living in northern climates you are immune suppressed if you do not supplement with vitamin D during fall and winter.</font>
- <font size=”2″>Scandinavian countries (Finland, Norway, Sweden) test their citizens twice a year for vitamin D and fortify 35 foods with vitamin D.</font>
- <font size=”2″>Our population is left vulnerable to any seasonal viral infection without a public health program to promote vitamin D adequacy.</font>
- <font size=”2″>There is not social disparity of care but the fact darker skin pigmentation inhibits sunshine vitamin D synthesis in the skin.</font>
- <font size=”2″>Fauci says he personally takes 8000-9000 units of vitamin D per day but why has this has not become a public health message?</font>
- <font size=”2″>The top three public health messages should be: 1- vitamin D; 2- vitamin D; 3- vitamin D.</font>
- <font size=”2″>By law, the federal government cannot approve a vaccine if there is a proven treatment. That would be Ivermectin.</font>
- <font size=”2″>The government is in bed with a vaccine company; both the federal government and Moderna co-hold patents on their RNA vaccine. The “fox is guarding the henhouse.”</font>
- <font size=”2″>The drug Remdesivir only works during the first 2-3 days of the infection. It does not increase survival. It is like “peeing on a forest fire.”</font>
- <font size=”2″>Four billion doses of Ivermectin have safely taken Ivermectin. Death rate decreased 70-90% in hospitals treating COVID-19 patients.</font>
- <font size=”2″>Of the half million COVID-19 deaths in North America, there would be 375,000 less deaths if Ivermectin were used! Public health officials have blood on their hands. 100% of Ivermectin-treated patients don’t get ill. Works for all genetic variants.</font>
- <font size=”2″>The vaccines are an experiment on society.</font>
- <font size=”2″>The vaccine is unproven and long-term safety data is not even being</font>
- <font size=”2″>You can get Ivermectin from doctors online. Myfreedoctor.com</font>
lewrockwell.com
Dr. Ryan Cole Blows the Whole Covid-19 Propaganda Away - LewRockwell
Cliff notes Dr. Ryan Cole is the CEO and Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, one of the largest independent labs in the State of Idaho. Dr. Cole has conducted over 100,000 Covid-19 lab tests and treated over 350,000 patients over … Continue reading
-
Dude, do some real research, instead of dredging up nonsense from irrational conspiracy theorists.
idahocapitalsun.com
Dr. Ryan Cole’s medical license is restricted in Washington after state regulators concluded he shared disinformation about COVID-19.
-
Dude, you’re a clown who followed like sheep. Please don’t make me start posting the jab effects. I don’t like to do it because it’s an ugly story and I’m watching it unfold around me by people I love that are being devastated by the jab–not covid. You’d be wise to search on that doc and find out what he really had so say. You’d also be enlightened if you researched the covid test for accuracy. The person who invented the testing protocol has been affirming that it was not intended to test for a virus like Covid because it won’t give accurate results. Dude, you’ve been had…
-
-
https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-there-no-correlation-between-masks-lockdowns-and-covid-suppression
mises.org
Why Is There No Correlation between Masks, Lockdowns, and Covid Suppression? | Mises Institute
Those who demand government-enforced lockdowns and mask mandates still can't seem to explain why we still can't find a correlation between lockdowns and covid
-
Another from the Janitor’s desk. This would keep intelligent people busy for a while following up on all the data, but you’ll read a few lines and draw your own preconceived conclusions. Unfortunately, I don’t have links to the laboratory studies that prove they don’t work, because normally I share the data with people who care and by now anyone smart enough to dig through the details has already found the true answers. I will waste a few more minutes seeing if I saved the CDC initial bulleting claiming they don’t work or the manufacturers data I have.
https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/
aapsonline.org
Mask Facts - AAPS | Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
curated by Marilyn M. Singleton, M.D., J.D. – http://marilynsingletonmdjd.com/ Updated September 26, 2020 Introduction COVID-19 is as politically-charged as it is infectious. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO, the CDC and NIH’s Dr. Anthony […]
-
theblaze.com
Horowitz: Comprehensive analysis of 50 states shows greater spread with mask mandates | Blaze Media
How long do our politicians get to ignore the results?
-
BTW jab warnings very early in the process…
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e4.htm
cdc.gov
Use of COVID-19 Vaccines After Reports of Adverse Events...
ACIP reviewed information on COVID-19 vaccines and concluded that benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of rare, serious adverse events.
-
conservativeplaylist.com
Editor’s Commentary: It truly is an honor having Dr. Joseph Mercola’s writings here even as he deletes them from his own site. But as I’ve said a few times, my only nitpicking “complaint” is that he’s often too nice. The … Continue reading
-
My daughter sent me a brochure from UCLA Medical School with a pamphlet from Colorado State they were using to prove that masks work. The link to the pamphlet doesn’t work any more, but here was my response after I dug into the details:
If you go to the sources they cite, none of them recommend the use of a mask to stop the spread of viruses.
1. The first source at the link “a 2015 study” in Vietnam concludes:
Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%…
They won’t even recommend surgical masks in their summary and conclusions.
2. The second link:”A 2008 Dutch Study” that I’ve been through in detail before. They didn’t have any conclusive evidence in their data. Even their conclusion statement up front is squirrelly – emphasis is mine: That’s like saying it’s likely you’ll die at some point in the future.
Any type of general mask use is likely to decrease viral exposure and infection risk on a population level, in spite of imperfect fit and imperfect adherence, personal respirators providing most protection. Masks worn by patients may not offer as great a degree of protection against aerosol transmission.
3. The third link (April 2020 review) is a classic case of ‘throw a bunch of crap out there cuz nobody will check on me.’ I followed the links around a maze to finally get to their discussion.
They say: “Several investigators have shown that respirators are effective for reducing HCP exposure to airborne viruses and bacteria.3–6 Although some studies indicate no difference between the effectiveness of surgical masks and respirators, evidence does exist showing that respirators should be used instead of surgical masks when performing aerosol-generating procedures, since a respirator’s tight seal and regulator are better equipped for minimizing airborne transmission.6,7 However, surgical masks are still considered an effective form of PPE since they provide some respiratory protection and can prevent the transmission of contagious respiratory droplets by infected individuals.”
Note the references for using respirators and no references for surgical masks. They go back to the same old story that I keep reading, that since surgical masks reduce droplets, they must provide some protection. There just isn’t any data to prove it.
4. The fourth link (June 2020 review) is a summary from the WHO that looked at 172 studies to try to come to a conclusion. Their results indicate that distancing is effective with a moderate certainty. Duh….Masks are effective with a Low Certainty of probability. So a few came up with a result that masks were effective and they probably used the study referenced above. Again, no data supporting it, just somebody’s review of a whole bunch of somebody’s else’s data. Why not just give the studies that say it’s effective.? Because you want to dazzle them with bullshit as we used to call it.
Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; p<sub>interaction</sub>=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; p<sub>interaction</sub>=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty
5. The Colorado Interactive Model link. They estimate all these cases reduced and lives saved based on the following – emphasis mine: Note they use the word, CAN. That’s a weasel word. If they had data they would say, “WILL”. And again, they are using the same studies saying that masks reduce droplets. Off course they do, but other studies I’ve sent you have concluded that there is no proof that reducing droplets reduces the chance of getting the virus.
Masks. A mask can prevent the spread of infections by containing droplets from an individual’s mouth or nose when they cough, sneeze, or talk. The proportion of the population wearing masks can be adjusted in the model.
-
DRUM ROLL……and now from the authority on masks….you know the CDC. Make sure you read the part on face masks!
wwwnc.cdc.gov
Pandemic Influenza—Personal Protective Measures
-
John, I didn’t know the CDC had this paper on their website. One of the other links you listed showed the virus particles were too small to stop the transmission via face mask. It looks like the biggest deterrent was social distancing. Maybe that’s what kept the virus at bay in China and not so much the masks. Interesting.
-
Hello Sophie, There was also a CDC Bulletin claiming that masks didn’t work, distributed in I believe August of 2020. It was quickly replaced with one that said they were effective. Although this is an official record it will be nearly impossible to locate that bulletin.
Masks should filter out bacteria, but that one study says they have been ineffective for that too. My conclusion is that the contamination occurs because of the inadequate seal. On my old computer, I had numerous other sources and even laboratory studies with the data proving masks ineffective for the reason you state–viruses are too small to be filtered out. I found this data from old emails because that computer died some time ago.
There has been a similar disinformation campaign regarding the vaccines and those who object to the ‘hype.’ The data is out there, it’s just really difficult to find because of there seems to be an agenda and only information that fits the agenda is widely disseminated. I provided one resource, Dr. Ryan Cole, but you can read what happened to him. and it was countered with the persecution this smart guy faced for telling the truth. Dr. McCullough is another one. Wikipedia introduces him as, “During the COVID-19 pandemic, McCullough advocated for early treatment using the discredited treatments hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, criticized the response of the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, dissented from public health recommendations, and …” The guy is brilliant but has been painted by the media as an idiot and he has been widely persecuted for his studies and conclusions.
The disinformation campaign is deep into many subjects including “Global warming.” It’s a scientific fact that if you look at estimated temperatures for millions of years, there is no hockey stick effect. It’s also a scientific fact that carbon dioxide levels will go up with increasing temperatures because the carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans will be released at higher temperatures. There were two reports issued in many years ago when this all started. The hype stated that 97% of scientists agreed with the concept of global warming, but that applied to the one report. The numerous scientist who objected were separated and removed from the results so they wrote another report. I’ve read them both and had copies on my old computer. One group claimed man-made effects and the other group rejected that claim and blamed temperature variations over time on the sun. The names of all the contributors were listed on both reports, and there were very smart people on both sides–they just disagreed. I had an email exchange with one of the prominent researchers who did the modelling of Global Warming on LANL’s super computer. I’ll summarize it with, “I never met a government funded scientist who objected to the presupposed conclusion he was being paid to find.”
Only those who dig deep find the real data–you know–the group of janitors that I’m lucky to be acquaintances with. Blessings…
-
John – You’re partly right, but partly wrong. When you’re right, you tend to overlook the context.
Indeed the CDC initially advised against mask wearing. This article discusses that. As you noted, they changed their mind. and this article discusses some of the reasons why. The revision was also supported by laboratory studies that demonstrated efficacy. Recommendations were made in good faith, based on the information available at the time.
One thing you’ve consistently gotten wrong is the claim that the small size of the virus is relevant. In fact, it’s not the size of the pathogen that is relevant to filtering by a mask,-but rather the size of the droplet. This article examines it:
“the filtration efficiency of the masks (for the size of droplets of the order of 2–3 μm and for the operating conditions set by these normative procedures and in particular for low exposure durations to bioaerosols) depends mainly on the size of the airborne droplet rather than the size of the infectious agent contained in this droplet.”
We do need to learn from our experiences, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we should forever refrain from masking. Improved filtration materials and better fitting masks may change the dynamic. I agree with you that we should respect the research, but we shouldn’t just look for research that supports our prior opinion – we should be open to revising our opinion as we learn more.
-
You’ve assumed that the virus is only spread by droplets. Where did you get this data because it sounds ridiculous.
-
“You’ve assumed that the virus is only spread by droplets.”
No, I never claimed it’s ONLY spread by droplets, but droplets seem to be the most significant means of transmission. This article discusses transmission methods. They distinguish airborne droplets from fomite transmission, although fomites (infected surfaces) tend to become infected by droplets in the air that land upon them. If you have a more recent study that shows droplets are not a significant mode of transmission, I’d be interested in reading it.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Coronavirus’s (SARS-CoV-2) airborne transmission
This scientific review of mode of transmission of COVID-19 is to aid scientific community in generating hypothesis. The inadequate evidence on SARS-CoV-2 transmission has hindered the development of effective prevention strategy and resulted in continues ...
-
-
BTW, you failed to review all the links in that one summary of studies, because you will find evidence that proves masks are complete ineffective–regardless of droplets or aerosols. I’m not part right or wrong–the science says that masks don’t work.
-
When I’ve made claims about what some studies show, I provide a link and quote. I suggest you do the same.
-
-
-
John: “ It’s a scientific fact that if you look at estimated temperatures for millions of years, there is no hockey stick effect.”
This proves that the earth will survive no matter what happens. What it overlooks is that humans have been around less than an half million years, and that modern society is vulnerable to the risks associated with the current trend of global warming.
It’s a fact that average global temperatures have risen over the past 200 years, and it has an impact. The only real controversies are how much of this is due to human activity, and how much it can be mitigated by changing our activities. Indeed, there are a handful of climate scientists (~3% of them! – see this source paper) who disagree that human activity is the primary cause of recent global warming, but why assume that minority is necessarily right? I certainly grant they aren’t necessarily wrong, but why embrace the minority view? The risks are real, even if there’s not absolute certainty. Doesn’t it make more sense to base public policy on the views of the vast majority of experts?
iopscience.iop.org
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, Andrew Skuce
-
-
“One of the other links you listed showed the virus particles were too small to stop the transmission via face mask.”
That’s not really true. this article explains that it is the size of the moisture droplets that contain the virus, not the size of the virus, that is relevant.
As I’ve mentioned to John, there’s a discrepancy between the measurable efficacy of masks in laboratory, and the measured effectiveness in real-world settings – and we therefore need to understand why this discprepancy exists. Among the possible reasons: what types of masks were used? Cloth masks don’t help very much at all; N95/KN95 masks help the most.
It should also be noted that masks are most effective when worn by those who are infected (they reduce the amount of airborne pathogen is ejected by that person. Masks are less effective at protecting the wearer from infection.
My general advice is to beware of confirmation bias. Be open to accepting results that disagree with your preconceptions.
-
-
-
https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2020/05/covid19_masks.jpg
I’ve seen a similar warning on the box of masks as Sam’s Club.
Log in to reply.