The Latest Mask Research Is Bad News For Branch Covidians

[Kamaji]

The Latest Mask Research Is Bad News For Branch Covidians

Scott Morefield
Jun 13, 2022

Unless you’re visiting a medical facility still taken in by the mask-cult or you live in a big city or some obscure California county run by hypochondriac Democrat whack-jobs, you’re probably generally living your life without being forced to wear a useless, bacteria-laden piece of t-shirt material over your face. However, if your overlords have gone out of their way to clarify that mask mandates have only been lifted because Covid rates have gone down or even that recent iterations of the virus have become less deadly, they are purposefully missing the overall picture and slyly holding on to the pretext that will invite the insanity back at any point - that masks “work” to stop or curb the spread of highly contagious respiratory viruses.

They don’t, obviously, but their rigid belief system is not surprising. Belief in the power and efficacy of face masks has become a de facto religion to these cultist nutjobs, and they’re just itching for the next opportunity to impose their ‘faith’ on the rest of us. If you think I’m exaggerating, consider that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) just recommended masking while traveling again based on the spread of … monkeypox. That’s right, that piece of cloth over your face is so magical that everyone must now wear one to ‘protect’ against a virus that so far mainly has spread at gay nightclubs via direct contact with the open pustules of infected people.

*  *  *

If masks or mask mandates worked, wouldn’t we see hard evidence of it by now, you know, more than two years in? If there were such evidence, wouldn’t the powers-that-be be shouting it from the rooftops? Instead, they’ve been pretty quiet because of charts like this, which used the CDC’s own data to compare Covid spread in counties that had mask mandates against counties that did not. The result? No discernible difference.

Thankfully, the tide is turning. Key research and data gathering is being conducted and released that continue to put a stake in the heart of forced masking. Here’s a sampling of the latest:

A University of Louisville study released in May 2022 found that mask mandates and greater compliance resulting from them “did not predict lower growth rates when community spread was low (minima) or high (maxima)." The study, which used CDC data across several seasons, found that mask usage and mandates “are not associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 spread among US states.”

Remember that CDC study purporting to show that school masking was effective? Did you wonder what the results would have been if someone had conducted a higher quality study over a greater sample size and period of time? Ambarish Chandra of University of Toronto and Dr. Tracy Hoeg of University of California, Davis did exactly that with this Lancet study titled, “Revisiting Pediatric COVID-19 Cases in Counties With and Without School Mask Requirements—United States, July 1—October 20 2021.” Their results: “... no significant relationship between mask mandates and case rates.” Color me shocked.

And finally, emerging evidence of what many of us suspected all along, the possibility that masks could actually be actively harming people. February 2022 saw the release of a medical journal report comparing Covid-19 fatality rates across Kansas counties during the height of the pandemic in 2020. Titled, “The Foegen Effect: A Mechanism by Which Facemasks Contribute to the COVID-19 Case Fatality Rate,” the observational study - published February 2022 in Medicine by German doctor Zacharias Fögen - analyzed “whether mandatory mask use influenced the case fatality rate in Kansas.”

*  *  *

Source:  https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmorefield/2022/06/13/the-latest-mask-research-is-bad-news-for-branch-covidians-n2608609

[DB]

It has all been lies piled on more lies.

"Science" has committed suicide right in front of us.

[Bigun]

It has all been lies piled on more lies.

"Science" has committed suicide right in front of us.

  Pretty much!

And those of us who tried to get the truth out were vilified at every turn.

[PeteS in CA]

Unless you’re visiting a medical facility still taken in by the mask-cult or you live in a big city or some obscure California county run by hypochondriac Democrat whack-jobs, you’re probably generally living your life without being forced to wear a useless, bacteria-laden piece of t-shirt material over your face.

  1. Medical facilities have used masks in various contexts for well over a century.

   2. If San Jose qualifies as a "big city", mask usage is almost entirely at the discretion of individual employers and individual people. E.G., my church has not required masks for months, nor have local restaurants.

   3. "Obscure California counties" tend to be conservative and mask-mandate-resistant. Scott Morefield would know this if he knew much about California besides stereotypes.

   4. Looking at the box of masks given me by my not-a-medical-facility employer, I see "ASTM F2100", "Surgical Face Mask" and "4-ply non-woven material". I'm pretty sure those masks, which I'd rather forgo, are not a "piece of t-shirt material", and, being produced and packaged in a controlled environment, are not "bacteria-laden".

I get that the first sentence is intended to be mockery, but placing ludicrous stereotypes and hyperbole at the beginning that way makes what follows - much of which is true - less credible, except to those who already know it or want to believe it.

[DB]

1. Medical facilities have used masks in various contexts for well over a century.

   2. If San Jose qualifies as a "big city", mask usage is almost entirely at the discretion of individual employers and individual people. E.G., my church has not required masks for months, nor have local restaurants.

   3. "Obscure California counties" tend to be conservative and mask-mandate-resistant. Scott Morefield would know this if he knew much about California besides stereotypes.

   4. Looking at the box of masks given me by my not-a-medical-facility employer, I see "ASTM F2100", "Surgical Face Mask" and "4-ply non-woven material". I'm pretty sure those masks, which I'd rather forgo, are not a "piece of t-shirt material", and, being produced and packaged in a controlled environment, are not "bacteria-laden".

I get that the first sentence is intended to be mockery, but placing ludicrous stereotypes and hyperbole at the beginning that way makes what follows - much of which is true - less credible, except to those who already know it or want to believe it.

A few things...

The bacteria is from wearing a masks for long periods of time. Not the manufacturing process.

I came from a small town in California. The mask mandates were statewide, cities big and small. Small towns that tried to sidestep the mandate were threatened with the loss of state funds. Indoor dining was banned. To stay open they had to serve takeout or people on the sidewalk/street.

The vast majority of masks worn were of the fabric variety. But surgical masks make no difference with a virus that is about 120 nm in size. Lots of studies prove this - most of which were done prior to Covid-19. Even N95 masks make little difference. And even if a mask managed to block 100% of 120 nm size particles your eyes are wet and warm which collect the virus with plumbing to your nasal cavity.

Medical facilities did not require patients to wear masks to enter the building until Covid-19. A surgical mask is helpful for bacterial infection spread. That was the traditional context of wearing one. Not for respiratory virus protection. Again there are many studies that confirm this.

[Smokin Joe]

Pretty much!

And those of us who tried to get the truth out were vilified at every turn.

Or censored, banned, or otherwise 'cancelled'.

Once again, science is not about consensus, it is about finding the right answer.
It is perfectly possible to have an entire roomful of people who believe one thing and for them all to be wrong. It has happened spectacularly in history, and modern times are far from immune.

[roamer_1]

The vast majority of masks worn were of the fabric variety. But surgical masks make no difference with a virus that is about 120 nm in size. Lots of studies prove this - most of which were done prior to Covid-19. Even N95 masks make little difference. And even if a mask managed to block 100% of 120 nm size particles your eyes are wet and warm which collect the virus with plumbing to your nasal cavity.

That's almost right - An n95 rating specification merely means the mask will stop 95% of .3+ micron particles. So the mosquito/chain link analogy is pretty accurate. It does nothing. The ONLY effective element is static in the mask which has the magnetic effect of attracting even very small particulates, adhering them to the mask by that static energy... But that static value is quickly negated by moisture.

So one could claim SOME effect in a new, dry mask. And in theory, a longer effect in a proper respirator which has an exhaust port, channeling exhaled moisture more-or-less out of the mask through the port... But masks with an exhaust port were verboten early on.

In a paper mask or a cloth one, any static is minimized in minutes due to moisture and the mask becomes a petri dish for bacteria (and virii). Equally, while the inhale stroke continues to work with added force due to the mask sucking up against the face, the exhale stroke tends to pass around the outside of a wet mask - the mask being pushed away from the face by the force of the exhalation once enough moisture is contained in the mask to become a reasonable blockage.

Medical facilities did not require patients to wear masks to enter the building until Covid-19. A surgical mask is helpful for bacterial infection spread. That was the traditional context of wearing one. Not for respiratory virus protection. Again there are many studies that confirm this.

The traditional use of a surgical mask in hospital settings in prevention of contagion relies on that weak static charge in a clean dry mask... protocol is to discard the mask outside of each room, and using antibacterial wipes or squirt bottles or some such at the same time on face and hands... starting with a fresh mask at the next room. There is no hospital protocol that allows mask use against contagion for longer than it takes for the mask to lose that static charge - a matter of minutes.