Vaccine hesitancy testing the patience of fully inoculated Americans

[al76]

26 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Your thinking is still based on the idea of the unvaccinated spreading asymptomatic.  But the reality - now well proven - is that:

#1 - there is NO asymptomatic spreading by the unvaccinated.  It is only when they exhibit symptoms that spreading can occur;

#2 - but there is HIDDEN spreading by the vaccinated, as the vaccines suppress their symptoms and so they do not know whether they are infectious.

So taking a plane or going to the theater, you are MORE at risk sitting near a vaccinated person than next to an unvaccinated.  Let that sink in...

Those are some bold claims. Could you provide some reputable sources? Because all of this is new to me. 

[Chaimai]

5 minutes ago, al76 said:

Those are some bold claims. Could you provide some reputable sources? Because all of this is new to me. 

 

 

To say "No" spreading may be stretching it a bit.............

 

 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210321/Asymptomatic-individuals-the-biggest-problem-in-COVID-battle.aspx

 

https://health-desk.org/articles/what-do-we-know-so-far-about-the-ability-of-asymptomatic-people-to-transmit-the-virus

 

[BlueSphinx]

31 minutes ago, al76 said:

Those are some bold claims. Could you provide some reputable sources? Because all of this is new to me. 

Yes, in course of today I will do so, and post the sources for both #1 and #2 on the Controversial Covid Corner  - no 'conspiracy stuff' but latest and hard scientific evidence.

@al76 > And will send you a notification PM when having done so.  You can take a look already at the 25 minute interview with dr Peter McCullough who hints at the above when talking about 'shedding' by the vaccinated.

<Link deleted>

[BlueSphinx]

1 hour ago, mcambl61 said:

Again, more self righteous virtue signaling blather. 

"my ilk" 

Well there it is again. Yet another arrogant display that people who disagree with your opinions are just so ignorant. 

Your irrational fear mongering and arrogant virtue signaling is astounding, but consistent. 

The ridiculous government draconian reaction to this virus exponentially worse than the virus. That is undeniable.... Unless you are delusional. 

You disagree, obviously, because there is no "peer" reviewed data while thousands of doctors are using off label cheap medicines to help patients avoid the serious effects of infection.

The destruction of the world's economy and the hundreds of millions of people jobs is not acceptable or justified. 

Either you have enough common sense to realize these things or you don't. But then, common sense has not been peer reviewed, so obviously it can't be true. 

Thanks for a great reply to @Stonker and so very true.  Love your 'common sense has not been peer reviewed, so obviously it can't be true' quote! 

[al76]

23 minutes ago, BlueSphinx said:

Yes, in course of today I will do so, and post the sources for both #1 and #2 on the Controversial Covid Corner  - no 'conspiracy stuff' but latest and hard scientific evidence.

@al76 > And will send you a notification PM when having done so.  You can take a look already at the 25 minute interview with dr Peter McCullough who hints at the above when talking about 'shedding' by the vaccinated.

 

Thanks, I’m honestly curious to read any new insights. That said the doctor you referred to seems to be somewhat controversial based on a bit of googling. More importantly he is a cardiologist and not a virologist or epidemiologist, I’m not sure what expertise he can bring to the table relating to virology. 

[mcambl61]

10 minutes ago, al76 said:

Thanks, I’m honestly curious to read any new insights. That said the doctor you referred to seems to be somewhat controversial based on a bit of googling. More importantly he is a cardiologist and not a virologist or epidemiologist, I’m not sure what expertise he can bring to the table relating to virology. 

If you are relying on Google to provide you with the best results for information and reality, please dig further. They have an agenda. As do the other social media platforms. All singing from the same sheet of music. 

[Benroon]

15 hours ago, Stonker said:

 A "personal" choice like which side of the road to drive on, or which way to drive down a one-way road?

Or whether to wear a seat belt or a motorbike helmet?

If you drive the wrong way down the road, you may be fine or you may get hurt - your choice.

But you could also kill people, either directly by driving into them or indirectly by making them swerve into each other, and even if no-one was hurt you'd make things difficult for everybody else.

If you don't wear a seat belt or a motorbike helmet you're the one most likely to be hurt, but if you're hurt you're also going to be taking an ambulance or a hospital bed away from others and, again, making things difficult for anyone else.

Not getting vaccinated is just the same - yes, you're the one taking most risk but you're directly affecting others, whether it's being more likely to pass on the virus, so putting others at risk or forcing others to carry on wearing masks and distancing to mitigate your actions, or taking up a hospital bed and staff who are badly needed to take care of others.

YOU'RE  NOT  THE  ONLY  ONE  AFFECTED  BY  YOUR  ACTIONS.

Why is that so hard to understand?

That’s fine providing you can personally guarantee 100% these vaccines won’t become the next Thalidomide - can you ? 
 

 

[MrStretch]

This thread has wandered off into the netherworld, and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Please, mods...cut out the non-topic postings and move them to the conspiracy/controversy thread where they belong.

[al76]

19 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

If you are relying on Google to provide you with the best results for information and reality, please dig further. They have an agenda. As do the other social media platforms. All singing from the same sheet of music. 

Yea I am aware of search engine and social platform bias based on user preferences and yea It can be insidious. I didn’t do a deep dive into this doctor but I do tend to view non-experts with wildly different opinions from mainstream science with a certain degree of skepticism. 

This didn’t help:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/vaccines-remain-largely-effective-against-delta-variant-counter-to-claims-from-fox-news-guest/

Still even the experts insights and knowledge keeps quickly evolving, I should keep an open mind. 

[mcambl61]

24 minutes ago, al76 said:

Yea I am aware of search engine and social platform bias based on user preferences and yea It can be insidious. I didn’t do a deep dive into this doctor but I do tend to view non-experts with wildly different opinions from mainstream science with a certain degree of skepticism. 

This didn’t help:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/07/vaccines-remain-largely-effective-against-delta-variant-counter-to-claims-from-fox-news-guest/

Still even the experts insights and knowledge keeps quickly evolving, I should keep an open mind. 

Yes, but these platforms are far more Insideous and sharply biased against any prevailing narratives that they prefer. 

 

And just who is fact checking the so called "fact" checkers? 

 

Fox didn't say that the vaccine was not effective. What they are rightly saying is that if people are vaccinated they should be able to live their lives without ridiculous government mandates. 

[stevenkongju]

12 hours ago, sputnik said:

exactly this mechanism does not work with these covid virus and the vaccines on offer...people will be exactly in the same numbers infected as without vaccine...the difference is they mostly experience  mild or no symptoms and can avoid ICU and death...

No, the risk of infection goes way down. Do you have a citation to back up your claim?

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0329-COVID-19-Vaccines.html

[SnapDragon]

11 hours ago, Stonker said:

Sorry @snapdragon, nothing personal, but there are limits to even my interest in replying to some people.

You were wrong about the head of UK's MHRA saying that the role of the organisation was to enable access, and you are wrong again here.

Here are a few mask studies; but first:

 

Professor Chris Whitty, the UK’s Chief Medical Officer, said in March 2020 that wearing a face mask had almost no effect on reducing the risk of contracting covid-19, and that the UK Government did not advise healthy individuals to wear masks. His statement was broadcast on all mainstream channels on UK TV.

-------

M. Klompas, C. Morris et al ‘Universal Masking in hospitals in the covid-19 era’ – New England Journal of Medicine 2020

-------

In 2015, the British Medical Journal published a paper entitled, A Cluster Randomised Trial of Cloth Masks Compared with Medical Masks in Healthcare Workers.

-------

HSE Contract Research Report no 27/1991, produced by the British Health and Safety Executive and entitled, Dead space and inhaled carbon dioxide levels in respiratory
protective equipment.

-------

Rev Mal Respir, was designed to evaluate the effect of wearing a surgical mask during a six minute walking test.

-------

A recent report published in the British Medical Journal summarised some mask-wearing risks. A published summary!

    First, when a face mask is worn, some of the air you breathe out goes into your eyes.
This can be annoying and uncomfortable and if, as a result, you touch your eyes you may infect yourself.
    Second, face masks make breathing more difficult and, has already been pointed out, anyone
who has a breathing problem will find that a mask makes it worse. Also, some of the carbon
dioxide which is breathed out with each exhalation is then breathed in because it is trapped.
    Together these factors may mean that the mask wearer may breathe more frequently or more
deeply, and if that happens then someone who has the coronavirus may end up breathing
more of the virus into their lungs. If a mask is contaminated because it has been worn for too
long then the risks are even greater. How long is too long? No one knows but two hours
seems an accepted limit.
    Third, there is a risk that the accumulation of the virus in the fabric of the mask may increase the amount of the
virus being breathed in. This might then defeat the body’s immune response and cause an
increase in infections – other infections, not just the coronavirus.

-------

A recent BMA study of 212 healthcare mask-wearing workers showed that a third of them developed
headaches with 60% needing painkillers to relieve the headache. Some of the headaches were
thought to be caused by an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the blood or a
reduction in the amount of oxygen in the blood. Another study, this time of 159 young health
workers, showed that 81% developed headaches after wearing face masks – so much so that
their work was affected.

An N95 mask can reduce blood oxygenation by as much as 20% and this can lead to a loss of
consciousness. Naturally, this can be dangerous for vehicle drivers; masked bus drivers, for
example, could be putting their passengers’ lives at risk.

-------

Dr Russell Blaylock, a retired neurosurgeon, has reported that wearing a face mask can
produce a number of problems varying from headaches to hypercapnia (a condition in which
excess carbon dioxide accumulates in the body) and that the problems can include lifethreatening complications. Symptoms of hypercapnia include drowsiness, dizziness and
fatigue. Some of the carbon dioxide exhaled with each breath is retained behind the mask and
then breathed in again.

Dr Blaylock has pointed to a study entitled, The use of masks and respirators to prevent
transmission of influenza: a systematic review of the scientific evidence. This study looked at
17 separate studies and concluded that none of the studies established a conclusive
relationship between the use of masks and protection against influenza infection. ‘When a
person has TB we have them wear a mask,’ concluded Dr Blaylock, ‘not the entire
community of the non- infected.’

-------

Dr M Griesz-Brisson MD PhD, a leading European consultant neurologist and
neurophysiologist wrote a paper in October 2020. Rebreathing our exhaled air, because of
wearing masks, will create oxygen deficiency and an excess of carbon dioxide in the body.
‘We know,’ she said, ‘that the human brain is very sensitive to oxygen deprivation. There are
nerve cells in the hippocampus that cannot last longer than three minutes without oxygen.’ Dr
Griesz-Brisson pointed out that the acute warning symptoms of oxygen deprivation are
headaches, drowsiness, dizziness, difficulty in concentration and slowing down of reaction
times.................

‘My conclusion has to be that no one has the right to force us to deprive our bodies of
oxygen for absolutely no good reason.'

-------

In a paper published in MedRxiv.2020 entitled, Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce
the spread of respiratory viruses, T. Jefferson, M. Jones et al concluded that compared to not
wearing a mask there was no reduction of influenza-like illnesses when health care workers
or the general population wore masks.

-------

In March 2020, Dr Jenny Harries, Deputy Chief Medical Officer in the UK, warned that it
is possible to trap the virus in a mask and start breathing it in. She said that wearing a mask
was not a good idea.

-------

A meta-analysis published in May in 2020 by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) was entitled,
Non-pharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in non-healthcare settings – personal
protective and environment measures. The authors concluded that the evidence from
randomized controlled trials of face masks did not support a substantial effect on the
transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza, either when worn by infected persons or by
persons in the general community to reduce their susceptibility

-------

In May 2016, a meta-analysis written by J. Smith and C. MacDougall and published in the
Canadian Medical Association Journal concluded that both randomised controlled trials and
observational studies of N95 respirators and surgical masks used by health care workers, did
not show any benefit against the transmission of acute respiratory infections. The authors also
concluded that acute respiratory infection transmission may have occurred via the
contamination of provided respiratory protective equipment during storage and through the
reuse of masks and respirators during the working day.

-------

In 2019, a scientific paper written by L.Radonovich and M.Simberkoff was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The paper was entitled, N95 respirators vs medical masks for preventing influenza among health care personnel: a randomized clinical trial.
The study involved 2,862 volunteers and showed that both surgical masks and N95 respirators ‘resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory confirmed
influenza’.

-------

In 2011, a meta-analysis of 17 separate studies regarding masks and the effect on the transmission of influenza found that none of the 17 studies established a conclusive
relationship between mask or respirator use and protection against influenza infection.
The study was conducted by F. bin-Reza, V. Lopez et al.

-------

A paper entitled, Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health workers in Japan: a randomized clinical trial was published in the American
Journal of Infection Control in June 2009. The authors concluded that face mask use was found not to be protective against the common cold when compared to controls who did not
wear face masks.

If you would Stonker; give us a link that supports your position.

 

[SnapDragon]

9 hours ago, Soidog said:

It’s difficult to debate this if you simply say you don’t agree with published data by renowned sources. I have however shown below the excess deaths for the U.K. and the US over the last year. This alone shows the above normal deaths which result from Covid 19. I find it utterly baffling how you can say Covid is not causing 4,000,000 people to die prematurely. Why else would every government in the world be taking this so seriously if it wasn’t anything to worry about?  

There are reasons for the peaks and troughs. And it is not C-19.

To believe the official UN line one would have to believe in the theory that germs and viruses cause disease. IMO, the 'germ theory' is a myth. There are far more very reasonable, and provable, explanations as to why we get sick.

In the thread 'What makes you ill' I've set out my position.

Take a look at the following. It's only a minute long.

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/the-numbers-don-039-t-lie-do-they-prepare-to-be-amazed-by-the-uk-government-039-s-own-figures_ocOEC46epTxndwR.html

[Loongtip]

On 7/30/2021 at 10:07 AM, Disenfranchised said:

How does one persuade a house brick?

Why do these morons allow themselves to be inoculated with these untested, experimental poisons without actually thinking about what will happen to them afterwards?! You are obviously the "house brick" in this case!! 

[Loongtip]

21 hours ago, Poolie said:

So it looks like all he vaccines are less than efficient against the current virus. Interesting times.

I wait for Moderna/Johnson/etc to be referred to as 'junk,' 'dishwater,' and other derogatory terms. 

And what do you expect from untested, experimental, poisonous, gene therapy inoculations? Gold stars, maybe? 

[Loongtip]

18 hours ago, Stonker said:

 A "personal" choice like which side of the road to drive on, or which way to drive down a one-way road?

Or whether to wear a seat belt or a motorbike helmet?

If you drive the wrong way down the road, you may be fine or you may get hurt - your choice.

But you could also kill people, either directly by driving into them or indirectly by making them swerve into each other, and even if no-one was hurt you'd make things difficult for everybody else.

If you don't wear a seat belt or a motorbike helmet you're the one most likely to be hurt, but if you're hurt you're also going to be taking an ambulance or a hospital bed away from others and, again, making things difficult for anyone else.

Not getting vaccinated is just the same - yes, you're the one taking most risk but you're directly affecting others, whether it's being more likely to pass on the virus, so putting others at risk or forcing others to carry on wearing masks and distancing to mitigate your actions, or taking up a hospital bed and staff who are badly needed to take care of others.

YOU'RE  NOT  THE  ONLY  ONE  AFFECTED  BY  YOUR  ACTIONS.

Why is that so hard to understand?

What utter drivel! 

[Loongtip]

18 hours ago, Stonker said:

You are obviously in this category, "those wanting their 15 minutes of fame playing at being an expert"! 

And, precisely, who are these "doctors who've been convicted of multiple counts of fraud and had their license taken away" that you claim?! What about some FACTS instead of all your spurious misinformation, mindless drivel and idiotic "analogies" that you use in an attempt to justify your getting vaxxed! 

 

 

[Loongtip]

18 hours ago, Stonker said:

Well, you can blame them if they fail to notice that the document says "may" so it's not yet known, that it only refers to one of many variants, or if they don't realise that propensity to transmission is based on a number of factors, not just one.

You can also blame them if they're stupid enough not to read further but just accept the interpretation they're fed by self-styled experts who've lost their medical licence indefinitely due to fraud and malpractice.

There you go again with your idiotic, unfounded claims about medical professionals " who've lost their medical licence indefinitely due to fraud and malpractice"! Where is your evidence to support your "claims"?! 

You are obviously "stupid enough" to just accept the interpretation that you are fed by YOUR choice of self-styled experts. 

For the edification of all, please list ALL your qualifications in the field of medicine and virology that allows you to make such profound statements about this "virus" and to allow you to ridicule anybody who doesn't agree with your distorted version of "the facts"?!

[ThaiFoodGuy]

Well...according to the CDC, unvaccinated people have as much chance of transmitting the virus to others as vaccinated people do.

If that's the case, the choice to be vaccinated is as dangerous as the choice not to be vaccinated, isn't it? I'm deliberately being hyperbolic, but you can't have it "both ways". There is a break in logic when we're being told that vaccination is the only route to safety, but that vaccination does not result in actual safety, and in fact is as unsafe as not even being vaccinated.

Don't blame me for this info, either. Straight from the proverbial horse's mouth:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/world/the-delta-variant-is-a-serious-threat-as-contagious-as-chickenpox-the-cdc-finds.html

[BlueSphinx]

1 hour ago, ThaiFoodGuy said:

Well...according to the CDC, unvaccinated people have as much chance of transmitting the virus to others as vaccinated people do.

If that's the case, the choice to be vaccinated is as dangerous as the choice not to be vaccinated, isn't it? I'm deliberately being hyperbolic, but you can't have it "both ways". There is a break in logic when we're being told that vaccination is the only route to safety, but that vaccination does not result in actual safety, and in fact is as unsafe as not even being vaccinated.

Don't blame me for this info, either. Straight from the proverbial horse's mouth:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/world/the-delta-variant-is-a-serious-threat-as-contagious-as-chickenpox-the-cdc-finds.html

Thanks and yes indeed you cannot have it both ways.  

 

The study details a COVID-19 outbreak that started July 3 in Provincetown, Mass., involving 469 cases. It found that three-quarters of cases occurred in fully vaccinated people. Massachusetts has a high rate of vaccination: about 69% among eligible adults in the state at the time of the study.

It also found no significant difference in the viral load present in the breakthrough infections occurring in fully vaccinated people and the other cases, suggesting the viral load of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with the coronavirus is similar.  < my emphesis >

 

Confirmed here > https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/07/30/1022867219/cdc-study-provincetown-delta-vaccinated-breakthrough-mask-guidance

and here the CDC study with the "bad news" > https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm?s_cid=mm7031e2_w

[Guest]

3 hours ago, ThaiFoodGuy said:

Well...according to the CDC, unvaccinated people have as much chance of transmitting the virus to others as vaccinated people do.

If that's the case, the choice to be vaccinated is as dangerous as the choice not to be vaccinated, isn't it? I'm deliberately being hyperbolic, but you can't have it "both ways". There is a break in logic when we're being told that vaccination is the only route to safety, but that vaccination does not result in actual safety, and in fact is as unsafe as not even being vaccinated.

Don't blame me for this info, either. Straight from the proverbial horse's mouth:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/world/the-delta-variant-is-a-serious-threat-as-contagious-as-chickenpox-the-cdc-finds.html

[Stonker]

On 7/31/2021 at 9:48 AM, snapdragon said:

You were wrong about the head of UK's MHRA saying that the role of the organisation was to enable access, and you are wrong again here.

I've never said that he did - as usual, either pure fantasy or a complete mis-reading of what's very clearly written.

OK I'll bite on  the rest as it won't take long:

1. Prof Chris Whitty.  You've given his view from March 2020. Since then his view has changed radically, and he now strongly advocates mask wearing even when optional and he's said so repeatedly - quoting him as an expert but overlooking that his view has changed totally is probably not your best move. 

He said this most clearly and recently on 5 July when he gave three instances of when he would continue to wear a mask "because masks help protect other people".

That was at the same No 10 briefing where Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientist, said that "Masks are most effective at preventing somebody else catching the disease from you, and they have sone effect to prevent you catching it".

2. ''Universal masking in hospitals" etc.  As with Prof Chris Whitty you've overlooked that while the article was published  on 1 April 2020 apparently supporting your view, on 3 June 2020 the authors wrote to the NEJM stating "we strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear mask when circumstances compel them to be within 6ft of others for sustained periods", clearly opposing your view and conclusions.

3. BMJ.  Of no relevance at all - it's a comparison between mask types, and you'vevoverlooked that cloth masks, which it effectively dismisses, aren't recommended in Thailand or most other countries.

4. HSE Report. Dated 1991, thirty years ago!  You've overlooked that the "respiratory protective equipment" used then isn't used any more, so it's of as much relevance as the study of longbows at Agincourt is to Rommel's campaign in Africa.

5. Rev Mal Respir. You've somehow overlooked that,  the report clearly found, in line with other studies, that there was "no difference in distance walked, heart rate,  or oxygen saturation between wwith a surgical mask and without" although they found some issues for those with PAH or COPD.

6. BMJ Report. Actually not "recent" as it was based on a re-run of a paper from May 2020. You've overlooked that despite the downside they concluded that "optimum face mask use in public settings could result in a large reduction in infection" and that studies were needed to mitigate the downside.

7.BMA Study. As expected, an authoritative study but of medical staff wearing a surgical mask for an 8 hour shift, so of little or no relevance.  You've also overlooked that following the study the BMA did a survey of doctors (12 July) that showed that 91% thought masks should be worn in hospitals down to 66% in workplaces and the BMA Council Chair stated that "if the PM does not continue to make mask wearing mandatory, we will see a sustained and even steeper rise in infection rates across the summer and beyond which will significantly impact on iur NHS and result in more serious illness and hospitalisation."

8. Dr Blaylock no longer has a licence to practice and he is at best controversial.  The study he referred to was from 2011, and while it concluded that the studies didn't show a proven relationship between masks and protection, neither did they show that there was no ssuch relationship, simply concluding (in 2011) that more study was needed.  The second  study he referred to was supposedly a study by the National Taiwan University Hospital in 2005, but the hospital has never published any findings.  

9. Dr M G-B.  Her criticism was that as masks cause oxygen deprivation so they're dangerous.  It has since been shown that when worn as mandated they don't cause oxygen deprivation.   Given that her opening comment in  her now famous video shown by David Icke (the world is run by lizard men) was to describe Covid-19 as a "moderate flu" I'm a little dubious.

10. MedRxiv. This was a 2011 study, based on a 2003 study, re-published last year, not peer-reviewed and not evaluated, published with a warning by Med Rxiv that it "should not be used to guide clinical practice."  Their bold. Maybe you overlooked that.

11. Dr Jenny Harries, was actually talking about the use and disposal of masks, but more importantly you've overlooked that like Chris Whitty started to vacillate in August and she has since reversed her stance on masks completely and she's said very strongly that face masks, like lockdowns, should have been enforced earlier.

12. The CDC analysis in May 2020 has since been completely reversed, as confirmed by the guidelines they gave last week, which you seem to have overlooked.

13. The analysis in the CMA Journal in May 2016, five years ago, and the AMA published paper from 2019, were both about medical personnel protecting themselves by wearing masks, and influenza - nothing to do with patients wearing masks to protect the medical personnel, so of no relevance - they were testing a completely different issue.

14. The 17 separate studies were the same studies Dr Blaylock referred to (see para 8), which you seem to have overlooked. They didn't conclude anything one way or the other.

15. The Japanese study in the AJIC in 2009, like para 13, was testing a completely different issue - not whether mask wearing prevented transmission to others, but if it protected the wearer.  It's of no relevance at all as it wasn't testing masks as they're now being used.

 

On 7/31/2021 at 9:48 AM, snapdragon said:

If you would Stonker; give us a link that supports your position.

 

Hardly necessary:  the links you gave that you imagined supported your position don't - they support mine. Had you taken  the trouble to read them instead of doing an uniformed cut'n'paste job that contradicts everything you say you may have realised that.

 

... or, realistically, probably not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SnapDragon]

4 minutes ago, Stonker said:

I've never said that he did - as usual, either pure fantasy or a complete mis-reading of what's very clearly written.

OK I'll bite on  the rest as it won't take long:

1. Prof Chris Whitty.  You've given his view from March 2020. Since then his view has changed radically, and he now strongly advocates mask wearing even when optional and he's said so repeatedly - quoting him as an expert but overlooking that his view has changed totally is probably not your best move. 

He said this most clearly and recently on 5 July when he gave three instances of when he would continue to wear a mask "because masks help protect other people".

That was at the same No 10 briefing where Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientist, said that "Masks are most effective at preventing somebody else catching the disease from you, and they have sone effect to prevent you catching it".

2. ''Universal masking in hospitals" etc.  As with Prof Chris Whitty you've overlooked that while the article was published  on 1 April 2020 apparently supporting your view, on 3 June 2020 the authors wrote to the NEJM stating "we strongly support the calls of public health agencies for all people to wear mask when circumstances compel them to be within 6ft of others for sustained periods", clearly opposing your view and conclusions.

3. BMJ.  Of no relevance at all - it's a comparison between mask types, and you'vevoverlooked that cloth masks, which it effectively dismisses, aren't recommended in Thailand or most other countries.

4. HSE Report. Dated 1991, thirty years ago!  You've overlooked that the "respiratory protective equipment" used then isn't used any more, so it's of as much relevance as the study of longbows at Agincourt is to Rommel's campaign in Africa.

5. Rev Mal Respir. You've somehow overlooked that,  the report clearly found, in line with other studies, that there was "no difference in distance walked, heart rate,  or oxygen saturation between wwith a surgical mask and without" although they found some issues for those with PAH or COPD.

6. BMJ Report. Actually not "recent" as it was based on a re-run of a paper from May 2020. You've overlooked that despite the downside they concluded that "optimum face mask use in public settings could result in a large reduction in infection" and that studies were needed to mitigate the downside.

7.BMA Study. As expected, an authoritative study but of medical staff wearing a surgical mask for an 8 hour shift, so of little or no relevance.  You've also overlooked that following the study the BMA did a survey of doctors (12 July) that showed that 91% thought masks should be worn in hospitals down to 66% in workplaces and the BMA Council Chair stated that "if the PM does not continue to make mask wearing mandatory, we will see a sustained and even steeper rise in infection rates across the summer and beyond which will significantly impact on iur NHS and result in more serious illness and hospitalisation."

8. Dr Blaylock no longer has a licence to practice and he is at best controversial.  The study he referred to was from 2011, and while it concluded that the studies didn't show a proven relationship between masks and protection, neither did they show that there was no ssuch relationship, simply concluding (in 2011) that more study was needed.  The second  study he referred to was supposedly a study by the National Taiwan University Hospital in 2005, but the hospital has never published any findings.  

9. Dr M G-B.  Her criticism was that as masks cause oxygen deprivation so they're dangerous.  It has since been shown that when worn as mandated they don't cause oxygen deprivation.   Given that her opening comment in  her now famous video shown by David Icke (the world is run by lizard men) was to describe Covid-19 as a "moderate flu" I'm a little dubious.

10. MedRxiv. This was a 2011 study, based on a 2003 study, re-published last year, not peer-reviewed and not evaluated, published with a warning by Med Rxiv that it "should not be used to guide clinical practice."  Their bold. Maybe you overlooked that.

11. Dr Jenny Harries, was actually talking about the use and disposal of masks, but more importantly you've overlooked that like Chris Whitty started to vacillate in August and she has since reversed her stance on masks completely and she's said very strongly that face masks, like lockdowns, should have been enforced earlier.

12. The CDC analysis in May 2020 has since been completely reversed, as confirmed by the guidelines they gave last week, which you seem to have overlooked.

13. The analysis in the CMA Journal in May 2016, five years ago, and the AMA published paper from 2019, were both about medical personnel protecting themselves by wearing masks, and influenza - nothing to do with patients wearing masks to protect the medical personnel, so of no relevance - they were testing a completely different issue.

14. The 17 separate studies were the same studies Dr Blaylock referred to (see para 8), which you seem to have overlooked. They didn't conclude anything one way or the other.

15. The Japanese study in the AJIC in 2009, like para 13, was testing a completely different issue - not whether mask wearing prevented transmission to others, but if it protected the wearer.  It's of no relevance at all as it wasn't testing masks as they're now being used.

Hardly necessary:  the links you gave that you imagined supported your position don't - they support mine. Had you taken  the trouble to read them instead of doing an uniformed cut'n'paste job that contradicts everything you say you may have realised that.

... or, realistically, probably not.

OK. That's one to you. That's one each; seeing as you lost on the MHRA quote.

[Stonker]

On 7/31/2021 at 11:25 AM, Loongtip said:

There you go again with your idiotic, unfounded claims about medical professionals " who've lost their medical licence indefinitely due to fraud and malpractice"! Where is your evidence to support your "claims"?!

Well, the FBI and the US Attorney's Office could be wrong that (ex) Dr Richard Fleming was found guilty of 13 counts of fraud, which resulted in a ten year jail term and a $250,000 fine, and the subsequent indefinite suspension of his medical licence.

 

He's one of the reliable experts oft quoted by @BlueSphinx et al.

 

Rather like (ex) Dr Andrew Wakefield, struck off by the GMC.

 

Alternatively, you could look at Dr Johan Denis in Belgium, Dr Juli Mazi, Dr Simone Gold and Dr Jennings Staley in the US, but they're not quite as widely quoted.

 

Of course, those could just be "idiotic, unfounded claims" and (ex) Dr Richard Fleming may have just pled guilty to all 13 fraud charges to save the court any inconvenience .....

[Stonker]

21 minutes ago, snapdragon said:

OK. That's one to you. That's one each; seeing as you lost on the MHRA quote.

Well, actually it's around 15 piles of steaming BS but at least you've been more honest than the others have here admitting that, so I've got to give credit where it's due.

 

... and FWIW I can hardly have "lost on the MHRA quote" as I never said it.