Wearing Masks

[buzzmobile]

A story in a gossip rag dated Jn 3, 2020.
I submit that this is not a viable/ reliable source IMO.
Where's the peer reviews of this "study"?
JS

The link is in the first paragraph of the "gossip rag". I dropped the link below for you. The bold text is the link from the article.

A review of 172 studies on coronavirus transmission from 16 countries confirmed that wearing a face mask and maintaining physical distance significantly reduced the risk of spreading COVID-19. The first-of-its-kind study, funded by the World Health Organization and published Monday in the journal The Lancet, also attempted to quantify how much each measure cut transmission risks by itself.

Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

 

[Guest]

A story in a gossip rag dated Jn 3, 2020.
I submit that this is not a viable/ reliable source IMO.
Where's the peer reviews of this "study"?
JS

WHO reviewed nearly 200 studies, and vetted for study protocol.

I'm betting you can find references in other periodicals, to the same information.

Believe it or don't.

I don't have Mr. Trump's fascination or fear of/with WHO, or discounting the thousands of Docs who suddenly seem to be perceived as consciously conspiring to undermine our populations, health, and more, in the eyes of the recently-conspiracy-afflicted partisans here and elsewhere.

 

[Guest]

The link is in the first paragraph of the "gossip rag". I dropped the link below for you. The bold text is the link from the article.


Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yes, buzz, that gossip rag's story re. the reviews appeared in The Lancet; the British equivalent of the Nat'l Enquirer.... or not.

 

[imiubu]

The link is in the first paragraph of the "gossip rag". I dropped the link below for you. The bold text is the link from the article.

Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

My bad, didn't realize you originally posted the info.

I had a well thought out reply with my recent research into these sites/ the owners and the information presented. I was distracted and when I returned... the site system had logged me out, sigh.
I will return later with my expose`
Prob should use a note/ word pad or something similar to form my thoughts pre posting, in the future

 

[imiubu]

Yes, buzz, that gossip rag's story re. the reviews appeared in The Lancet; the British equivalent of the Nat'l Enquirer.... or not.

Hmmm, has my opinion of the original site (within what I quoted) cause a trigger? I said nothing (yet) about "The Lancet". Don't get things twisted up here to fit a personal agenda please, it's disingenuous and IMHO not typical to your usually thoughtful posts.

 

[buzzmobile]

My bad, didn't realize you originally posted the info.

I did not originally post the info. The info was in the link that moose eater provided. Take some time to go back to the link he posted. The Week . com "speed reads" that seemed like a gossip rag to you. The Lancet link can be found there.

 

[Guest]

Hmmm, has my opinion of the original site (within what I quoted) cause a trigger? I said nothing (yet) about "The Lancet". Don't get things twisted up here to fit a personal agenda please, it's disingenuous and IMHO not typical to your usually thoughtful posts.

No, I was speaking broadly to those who seem convinced of those things I listed. But the initial dismissal of the source, when the link I posted, I am pretty sure, referenced replication in The Lancet. Meaning that you more or less disregarded a publication, when that publication clearly stated the article was also appearing in a premier European medical review journal.

That was all.

 

[Frosty Nuggets]

Doctor says 4 year old nearly dies from a bacterial infection from wearing a mask.


https://www.bitchute.com/video/u2f7nav2NnfV/?list=notifications&randomize=false

 

[Chi13]

Doctor says 4 year old nearly dies from a bacterial infection from wearing a mask.


https://www.bitchute.com/video/u2f7nav2NnfV/?list=notifications&randomize=false

Face masks are one instrument in our toolbox for the fight against COVID-19. However, there are arguments in circulation against mask wearing that aren’t true. UnityPoint Health Infectious Disease Specialist, Dr. Rossana Rosa, debunks 5 common face mask myths to ensure everyone is armed with accurate information to keep people safe and healthy during this pandemic.

Myth #1: Wearing Face Masks Can Cause Fungal and Bacterial Infections – Like Pneumonia
This is a very common myth that’s circulating. First, let’s talk about bacterial infections. The way bacterial pneumonia tends to develop is through aspirating – or breathing in – contents into the lungs. So, in terms of wearing a mask, the respiratory droplets you exhale that land on the inside of your mask that you then breath back in will not give you bacterial pneumonia.

If you have phlegm, you should find a way to safely spit it out. That way you aren’t at risk of breathing in large amounts of mucus or saliva into your lungs, which is how bacterial pneumonia develops.

Fungal pneumonia, otherwise known as pneumonia caused by molds, is extremely rare and mostly seen in people with low performing immune systems – like those with cancer, a transplant or other types of immune deficiencies. One way you could hypothetically end up with fungal pneumonia is if you find an old mask that’s very moldy and decide to use it. It’s very important to keep your masks clean and wash it after every wear.

Additionally, groups of people who regularly wear masks for prolonged periods of time do not have higher rates of pneumonia than the rest of the population.
https://www.unitypoint.org/article.aspx?id=aa6ca469-4ba9-4faa-81ee-6b6aff8acc36

 

[Microbeman]

Yes, buzz, that gossip rag's story re. the reviews appeared in The Lancet; the British equivalent of the Nat'l Enquirer.... or not.

Ya Buzz, you fukin gossipy old woman.

Only foolin - before somebody jumps on me.

 

[imiubu]

I did not originally post the info. The info was in the link that moose eater provided. Take some time to go back to the link he posted. The Week . com "speed reads" that seemed like a gossip rag to you. The Lancet link can be found there.

Sorry it took me a bit to get back to this.

I wanted to address it more fully but I get too involved with IRL and have not devoted the
time necessary to more fully develop my rebuttal unfortunately.

In the future, I'll not pick up on a subject unless I have time to devote to it.

I do not open links inside of articles like moose eater posted. I did however take a quick peek into "The Lancet". The small amount of info I garnered was that they are simply the publishers of reports/ studies etc. This doesn't mean they themselves are the 'experts'. Would need to dig deeper into the actual studies and peer review papers to make a better informed decision as to the validity of the info presented.

That particular link was to a "gossip rag" IMHO.
"The Lancet" may hold themselves to a 'higher standard' but I don't have the time nor inclination to look further into them.

I have a deep distrust of my gov't and an even deeper distrust/ disdain for large overlords with way too much power, ie; the WHO. Not much that comes from those type sources will I fully trust simply because they've deemed themselves the experts. I'll not follow blindly.

 

[buzzmobile]

Sorry it took me a bit to get back to this.

I wanted to address it more fully but I get too involved with IRL and have not devoted the
time necessary to more fully develop my rebuttal unfortunately.

In the future, I'll not pick up on a subject unless I have time to devote to it.

I do not open links inside of articles like moose eater posted. I did however take a quick peek into "The Lancet". The small amount of info I garnered was that they are simply the publishers of reports/ studies etc. This doesn't mean they themselves are the 'experts'. Would need to dig deeper into the actual studies and peer review papers to make a better informed decision as to the validity of the info presented.

That particular link was to a "gossip rag" IMHO.
"The Lancet" may hold themselves to a 'higher standard' but I don't have the time nor inclination to look further into them.

I have a deep distrust of my gov't and an even deeper distrust/ disdain for large overlords with way too much power, ie; the WHO. Not much that comes from those type sources will I fully trust simply because they've deemed themselves the experts. I'll not follow blindly.

OK.

 

[vanilla dutch]

Actually the Lancet is very well respected in the medical field. I used to work for a company that distributed books and magazines in that field.cell press is another good read . subject matter is a little beyond my education though.

 

[Parameter]

Actually the Lancet is very well respected in the medical field. I used to work for a company that distributed books and magazines in that field.cell press is another good read . subject matter is a little beyond my education though.

You’re right. Lancet journal i respected.

 

[armedoldhippy]

"large overlords with way too much power -IE-the WHO" they have damn little power. mostly, they give out the best advice their scientists can come up with. they can't force folks to be vaccinated or anything else. some folks take advice, the rest play in traffic & bitch when they get run over...

 

[Tudo]

The EGOpro Social Distancing anti-covid devices - AME -

The EGOpro Social Distancing anti-covid devices - AME -

The EGOpro Social Distancing anti-covid devices - AME -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFes5fmpCoE&feature=emb_title

 

[Guest]

The EGOpro Social Distancing anti-covid devices - AME -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFes5fmpCoE&feature=emb_title

They have one of those that directs 50,000 volts at persons who disregard the flashing lights?

 

[Microbeman]

"large overlords with way too much power -IE-the WHO" they have damn little power. mostly, they give out the best advice their scientists can come up with. they can't force folks to be vaccinated or anything else. some folks take advice, the rest play in traffic & bitch when they get run over...

Yes dark overlords like Betty's book and knitting club down the road. Scary stuff....although it is said tunnels from her basement connect to a pizza place.

 

[Tudo]

They have one of those that directs 50,000 volts at persons who disregard the flashing lights?

There was a safe made in England that would zap your ass with a major electric shock if you tried to crack it. I wanted one really bad in my shop which was a VERY visible and large shop located in what was at the time the most heavily trafficked ( it's a lovely word in a different sense don't you agree? ) circle in southern new jersey. But no way jose to import that into the States much less the "crossroads of the American Revolution which has been locking people up for a plant for so many decades now? ). Not then anyway . I had 2 shops, the first one failed was located in Bricktown and the 2nd one failed too was downtown Belmar. Circa 1982

 

[vanilla dutch]

Just to stay on topic. I wear my mask everywhere except in the house.unless company insists on wearing theirs then I wear mine also.even in the lodge we have to wear a mask.